That went by fast! ... ... by Bob Nelson
Four days is a good cooling-off period.
Perrie suspended me for that long for "disrupting the site" or somesuch language. She was right... partially.
I was indeed disrupting...
... but not the whole site.
I was disrupting seeds from members who, a few hours earlier, had disrupted a seed of mine. But on NT, what is permissible when done by some members is not permissible when done by others.
My seed was under Red Rules:
Red Rules apply:
- Read the article.
- Comment on the article... Stay on topic... Be constructive.
- Be polite.
These rules aren't unreasonable, to my mind. The first rule, "Read the article", should be obvious... but there are a great number of members who do not respect it. They read only the title and riff off that.
The method for disrupting a Red Rules article is by now tried and true. It has been done over and over. It is now a dance, and everyone knows the steps: Several members arrive, and Comment off-topic. (The preferred technique for this is to pick a word from the title that is not the main topic, and then incessantly repeat, "Hey! It's in the title!") When I request that they remain on-topic, they derail onto "what is the topic?" or onto "you're not applying the CoC correctly".
In this particular case, the "Moderator" who was (supposedly) taking care of the seed actually participated in its disruption. He expressed his personal opinion of my application of my rules, he refused to delete a derail into meta, and finally he suggested that someone re-seed the same Original Article without Red Rules.
Another member then copy/pasted my seed. He did NOT "re-seed" the Original Article. He simply stole my seed, copy/pasting my formatting, while deleting my Red Rules.
But it's well-known that some members, and this one in particular, may do whatever they please...
So... doing as I had already been done to... I began Commenting off-topic on seeds from the members who had Commented off-topic on mine .
Turn-about is fair play, right?
Of course not.
One of the seeds I disrupted was dedicated to goat-fucking. Yes... goat-fucking!
As well as theft of others' seeds, NewsTalkers is quite OK with softcore porn, softcore BDSM, softcore bestiality... So goat-fucking is well within NT's moral standards.
Several members Commented that a seed dedicated to goat-fucking might not be too great for NT's prestige, but Perrie had no problem with goat-fucking. In fact, she said that there was no reason for anyone to be upset by goat-fucking because no one was required to watch the video.
She did not tell the disrupters on my seed that if they did not like my Red Rules, they should simply stay away, rather than disrupt.
But hey! It's Perrie's site, and she can apply as many different standards as she pleases. She has no need to justify a suspension (or even exclusion).
Have a great day, everyone! It's good to be back...
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
709 visitors
And during my suspension, I finally found time to start post-treatment of my most recent road-trip photos. I'll post some when I've finished.
Bob, you have some good points but the title of a seed is by definition on topic. If you didnt want anyone discussing Roy Moore you should have changed the title.
Then we have contradictory rules.
We're supposed to keed the title of the Original Article, but every word in that title isn't "the topic".
The topic of an article is in the text, not in the title.
There is no rule against changing the title as long as it doesn't become misleading.
So... How can we rephrase? Would "Evangelicals are challenged by the Moore nomination" do the job? IMHO, I'd still get lots of posts about Moore, and then "Hey! It's in the title!"
The problem, John, is that it's very hard to find any solution Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
Then... Why are you posting here?
Because I can!
Yes. Be happy.
Yes. And above all-- don't worry!
Nothing more than a way to throw more boulders at Perrie and the site.
Using different standards for different members is a mistake.
obviously, you did not learn anything from your extended 'vacation'. Verbally stomping your feet in a 'poor me' tantrum and throwing even bigger boulders at Perrie does nothing for your credibility. And your "tit for tat" responses and current attempt at revenge for your 'vacation' which you fairly earned, are even more childish. you can continue to pitch your hissy fit if that is all you have to contribute, but, it makes you look like an ever bigger cry baby and does nothing positive for your 'cause'.
Using different standards for different members is a mistake.
Is it for you to say "what he learned"? That is so condescending.
I don't understand. What who learned?
Raven said.....during your suspension .....blah, blah, blah.
Hahahahaha - "learn" from this bunch?!!! Nope, we don't learn very well - we're stubborn.
If you were given a 4 days suspension would you quickly return and start posting the same kind of crap that got you suspended in the first place? Or would you learn that what you did to get the 4 day suspension was not something you should do?
As for condescending, call it what you like, it matters not to me that you think it is.
Magnolia - it has to be Bob's way or no way - haven't you noticed?
Hence the crying game.
I was not referring to the members here, I was referring to the reason for his suspension.
You know that he is not the only one. You know that.
I don't understand either.
Who learned what?
Maybe they both learned something,
But if that's the case-- Who learned it first?
Oh wait, my mistake . . . Who's on second!
I don't understand either.
Who learned what?
Maybe they both learned something,
But if that's the case-- Who learned it first?
Oh wait, my mistake . . . Who's on second!
Are you OK with a member "stealing" another member's work?
I've not seen anyone 'steal' anyone's work here on NT. So I have no idea what you are referring to.
Look at my seed, and the one that was posted later without Red Rules. They have distinctive signs: particular margins, justification, and links at the end. The "stolen" seed is a simple copy/paste of my seed.
Are you OK with that?
Was it your own original work?
It's my formatting and links.
Since you said you provided links, it was obviously something you found online that others have access to, and not something original that you personally wrote yourself. That someone else posted the same information as you did does not constitute as their 'stealing' your article. As for spacing and such, do you think you are the only one here on NT that knows how to use those features?
I find your accusations a bit out in left field, but, you are certainly free to post whatever you like.
So... you didn't look, or you didn't understand... but you are answering negatively anyway. Bravo.
So... you're OK with my copy/pasting your next seed/article under my name. Please post something soon or I'll forget...
I don't normally post any seeds/articles or discussions on the FP as I don't have the time to baby-sit the endless BS that some to destroy them for pure pleasure of serving their own personal agenda to derail, disrupt and/or create hostilities and divisiveness among the Members like some here on NT like to do.
However, if I ever do, wipe yourself out. It would not be me looking the fool.
So... are you agreeing that the disruption that some members did to my seed was wrong?
You get as good as you give. Ever hear of that? You yourself have disrupted a good many posts by others, so now you cry what people did to your own. You are not without guilt yourself.
That is not true, except for the "others" who previously disrupted my seed.
Good question. Let's be precise. I don't mind at all that someone re-seed an Original Article that I previously seeded. I object to someone copy/pasting my seed, partially.
I spend time and effort on my seeds. I format them a bit differently than NT's native format, because I think narrower columns are easier to read. I append links to the OA, the author, and the source.
I object to another member simply stealing that work.
If another member wants to make the effort to actually re-seed, I have no problem at all.
I object to theft.
So you're ok with somebody taking your work. I'll try to remember that...
But you didn't answer a simple question: Is it ok for one person to take another person's work without permission?
Did you write the article Bob? Formatting doesn't count. It provides no intellectual content to the article.
What work? You did a copy and paste to seed an article.
The reseeded article removing your censorship stated
Notice the first word? RE-POSTED. It means that he isn't taking credit for the original seed. Just the removal of your childish attempt to control what is said..
Seriously, Bruce?
You, the defender of all things conservative... You are ok with a person simply taking another person's work?
In any other context, you'd be screaming "THEFT!"
Wait what?
First you chastise him about 'tit for tat' and 'revenge' and then say that he gets as good as he gives [tit for tat] and claim that because he has 'disrupted' he should rightly expect to be disrupted [revenge].
Wow that is a very confusing standard.
No.
I do much more than that. I reformat the text to ensure easy reading. I append links.
If Bf had followed the link I supplied to the Original Article, and then had done his own seed... I would have no objection. He did not re-seed. He stole my work.
Do you approve of theft?
Ummm... No.
Normal decency is to not take another person's work without permission. I didn't give it, and won't. If someone wants to re-seed, then they should make the effort.
I'll move on when you say either, "I'm ok with theft" or "I'm not ok with theft". Of course, my next question might be, "Why was it so hard to condemn theft?"
No I don't. And many here don't see it as theft. Some actually see what he did as an adjustment and improvement.
Gee... The guy who used my work without my permission has pardoned himself. That's a surprise.
I understand that Trump asked Sessions if he could pardon himself, and that the law is unclear on the subject.
But Badfish pardoning Badfish on NewsTalkers? That is surely valid. Badfish is all-powerful on NT. He can even make goat-fucking an ordinary thing, which is pretty amazing, when you think about it...
Depends. Do you want to control exactly what is said and the direction of the conversation? Go RBR. Want to foster the free exchange of ideas and conversation? Stay away from RBR.
OK.
I don't just copy/paste. I reformat to improve readability. Do you agree that my work to improve readability is "added value" and that that added value belongs to me? And therefore copy/pasting my seed includes copy/pasting my work?
Theft.
"All"?
There are quite a few who are desperately trying to justify... theft.
Especially the thief...
Ok, Bf... Everyone now understands that you stole my work, but since most of the folks who are posting here are your sycophants, they're not going to say so.
Shall we return to Red Rules, or can we just agree that Bruce has probably destroyed them once and for all?
Indeed...
Nope. That's simple mechanics. it falls under the "Threshold of Originality".
Since you are not the original author, any mechanical process is not copyrightable. Therefore, it is not original, and is not theft.
Translation - You threw a childish temper tantrum.
Many of the comments you declared as "off topic" on your RBR seed were on topic. But, because they weren't what you wanted to hear, you declared them off topic. Then proceeded to begin your tantrum on other seeds.
My Grandma's saying was...if everything is coming at you, you may be in the wrong lane.
Mine said, "Sometimes even a paranoid is being persecuted".
Confucious say:
Man standing in middle of road get hit by cars going in both direction!
What is the purpose of this thread being posted on the front page??? Go to Heated Discussion if you need more attention.
This is an "original article", as opposed to a "seed". Original articles go to the Front Page.
Sadly, and typically, you don't know what you're talking about.
Look at Heated Discussions - on the intro bar, there are 10 "Original seeds/threads" of topics previously posted.
No, "Original Articles" go to whatever forum they are posted in. Some make it to the front page - some don't.
Take it up with Perrie,
Learn how NT operates Bob - you'd be surprised how well it works.
WTF??
You complain that my OA goes straight to the FP... and then you lecture me about how well the site works?
C'mon! Make up your mind...
You blew it - bite the bullet and move on. Learn from your mistakes and quit crying.
Look Bobby, there was NO reason for you to disrupt the goat fucking seed, that was totally uncalled for. I'll have you know that some of us are very interested in goat fucking and were trying to have a serious discussion.
Now, I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, but the way I see it, you OWE us a goat fucking seed. If you will seed an article or blog on goat fucking, throw it wide open for discussion with no red box rules, we'll call it square. Deal?
Gee... I'm really, really sorry.....
That is too darn funny!
Thanks Mango, when someone serves up a beachball, you just HAVE to smack it!
Well. Allow me to retort.
I went back to the RBR group and read through several of the articles posted there. Some written by you Bob. And I have to tell you, before you use RBRs again, you should go back and read those articles and comments. It might save you some angst and embarrassment.
Let's look at the article you seeded. 10 paragraphs. 5 of those paragraphs mentioned Roy Moore or the accusations against him. 3 paragraphs were about Evangelicals and their faith. The other two, the Opening and Closing were, well, opening and closing. Yet you chose to narrow the discussion topic to Evangelicalism. Something that was only discussed within in 3 paragraphs without mentioning Moore or his alleged actions. Yes, Bob, that was a PAPER THIN topic given the article you seeded.
Let's see how Bob approached RBRs when he and I, (yes, it was an unholy union between us) developed the RBR policy. From an article titled "What are reasonable RBRs?" we find this entry by Bob:
What happened to challenging your topic interpretation Bob? You took and article written by an Evangelical who was addressing the Roy Moore issue with fellow Evangelicals, and you wanted the topic to be...Evangelicalism? That's like seeding an article about Charlie Manson and limiting the topic to swastika tattoos. But hey, they were your rules. If you wanted the topic to be Evangelicalism, that's your choice. But you don't get to whine about a mod calling it paper thin. But you should really re-read that article Bob. The issue of narrow topics is discussed. And then you should re-read YOUR article you wrote: "Let's Be Precise!". Because in that article YOU state this:
So, you no longer want people to propose topic changes Bob? Even when an article with at least half it's topic about Moore is narrowly interpreted? Were you trying to foster debate Bob, or shut it down. I ask because I found this post from you in one of the articles Perrie wrote:
A look through your article would quickly show which camp you belonged to in there.
And let's address this:
First, let's talk about your whine about stolen seeds. You seeded an article. The article has it's own copyright protection. YOU enjoin no specific copyrights for formatting. So that argument is moot.
Second, I again direct your attention to a comment YOU made in the RBR group:
BF did just that. Something you suggested 3 years ago.
Let me close by saying that your application of the RBRs, a policy you and I worked hard to implement, and that we both defended vigorously, was a travesty. You did a big dis-service to the policy, and that may very well be detrimental to you, me, and anyone else who chooses to use this tool. The new members have seen how your narrow paper thin application of topic and enforcement have made a mockery of the policy. And they may very well avoid any future RBR articles like the plague.
E.A if Five thumps UP the max??
Then you get 5 Thumbs UP!!!
Of course. You are entitled to your opinion. But when you are acting as a Moderator, you are not allowed to express it.
Your "moderation" encouraged the disruption of my seed, and then you suggested that someone re-seed the original article. Now you are taking your assault on Red Rules to another level by approving a straight-up copy/paste.
Basically, you are defining a process for ruining any Red Rules seed/article... while angelically proclaiming your attachment to Red Rules. Do you really think anyone will be fooled by your duplicity?
You quote articles from three years ago, as though nothing has transpired since. Personally, I have made two major changes:
First, "Read the article". The purpose is to eliminate debate about "the topic". I don't think any serious reader can read the article and not understand that Moore is just a vehicle, and not "the topic". Counting instances is either a demonstration of wretched reading skills or plain old Bad Faith.
Second, "Be constructive". If a Commenter says something constructive, even if it is somewhat off-topic, I'll let it run. Perhaps even encourage it. But the disrupters' Comments were not constructive. "No redeeming value".
What I find distasteful in your post, here, Bruce, is its fundamental dishonesty. You proclaim an attachment to Red Rules that you have never demonstrated... while detailing a process for disrupting any Red Rules seed/article.
Tell us about goat-fucking, Bf. Stick to what you know.
Repetition of stupidity does not render it intelligent.
You can try to paint it any way you want Bob. The sad truth is you fucked up. You took an article that was about one subject, and tried to limit debate to an obscure tangent. And you used the RBRs to limit that debate. That's obvious to anyone who read it. And when you were called on it, you whined. And when someone did the exact thing YOU suggested 3 years ago, you whined louder. And then you showed your ass by trying to disrupt that article, and other articles of BF's. And you got your pee-pee smacked for it.
So now you're back. And the whine level and pity party starts again. Get over yourself Bob. You made this bed, now lay in it.
Exactly what he does best.
You are clever, Bruce. Profoundly dishonest, but clever. Your method is simple: tell a story, and then repeat it over and over. The story is false, but if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.
Here's a simple, true story: while acting as Moderator, you first encouraged disruption, and then prescribed a method for definitively destroying Red Rules.
Tell us about goat-fucking, Bf. Just tell us about goat-fucking. Stick to what you know.
They should be destroyed. The community never voted on them and never voted for you and Bruce to represent us in creating them.
Please, Dean...
Bruce has worked to sabotage Red Rules from Day 1.
That said, you are probably right. Bruce has effectively enunciated a process for destroying any article/seed under Red Rules, so we probably should abandon any pretense that vandalism can be prevented on NT.
Nope. If I had, Perrie would have called me on it. Ironically, you're the one who is telling a story and repeating it even though it's false. Actually, it's not ironic at all. It's rather sad. You fucked up your article, and had a tantrum all over the site, and now you try to deflect it as if you were the victim. And this article, this cry for pity is proof of that.
Pretty sure I just showed that it was YOU who suggested that method 3 years ago Bob. So that just proves that it is YOU who are being dishonest here Bob. You can't handle the fact that YOU suggested the very act that slapped your pitiful article, so you try and blame it on me. Wont work Bob. The evidence is right there. YOU suggested your own demise. And now you can't handle it.
I just noticed this. And then I read this:
And
And
And
Tell us again about repetition of stupidity Bob.
Your post is still there, if anyone has the desire to go look at it. You can spin as fast as you wish, but reality is still what it is.
(Yes, I know... reality is very last-Presidency, but...)
Ah, but no, Bruce!
Goat-fucking is not stupidity. We know goat-fucking isn't stupidity because Badfish brought it to NT. And we all know that Bf would never bring a worthless, stupid, crass, foul topic to NT...
Perhaps.
For example, I understand "taking someone else's work without their permission" to be "theft". How about you?
In point of fact... If the question ever came to court, I'm pretty sure I'd win. My reformatting to improve readability is "added value". That added value is mine, and you took it without my permission.
There’s a word for a person who takes something that belongs to another, without permission. "Thief".
Hmmm....
That sounds very much like, "OK, dude! You have made your point. We all can see that it was theft, but because we're political allies with the thief, we're never gonna say so. Tribal identity is more powerful than truth!"
Cool!
Gosh, Bf!
You don't agree that taking someone else's work without their permission is theft.
Gee...
Why am I not surprised?
Why come back if this is such a terrible place? Kos has a forum page you would fit very well in. You would love the tip jar.
Once in a faculty meeting our principal, an old WW2 vet who didn't tolerate a lot of petty nonsense, responded to a raft of petty complaints by saying "none of you have an anchor tied to your ass". The room got very silent and the whiners zipped it.
So Bob! You don't have an anchor tied to your ass! Why act like you do?
I've been here since the beginning. A lot of time invested.
Unlike you...
I admit to having trouble following the site's descent into the gutter. I would not have imagined that goat-fucking would be an acceptable topic... but then...
If Bf posts it, it's ok.
Goat-fucking is the new normal for NewsTalkers!
Unless... I just now thought...
Tell us Bf, oh arbiter of NT morals, is goat-fucking an acceptable topic in all circumstances, or only when it is shown being done by Arabs?
Poor Perrie!
Between goat-fuckers and cry-babies...
Sunk cost is sunk cost! Remember that line from econ 101 in college?
Goat-fucking and mayo?
Yuk!
Victim? Nonsense, that goat wanted it, ba-a-a-a-a-d!
Oh, thanks for clearing up the confusion!
So... Goat-fucking isn't a good topic all by itself, but ISIS goat-fucking is cool. Gosh!
Your role as arbiter elegantiae for NT must be much more difficult than I had imagined.
It does seem like this article should be moved into "heated discussions".........
You mean we can have a heated discussion on goat fucking?? Let's!
Umm... goat-fucking with Bf, Bruce, and HoC...??
... think about it...
Don't drag me into your sick fetishes Bob.
Hey!
Bf brought goat-fucking to NT, and we all know that Bf has only the site's best interests at heart. You wouldn't be questioning the social value of goat-fucking for NT, would you?
I question your obsession with fucking a goat Bob. Clearly you have some latent bestiality tendencies.
It's an NT standard, now, Bruce. When Badfish introduces a topic like this, it immediately becomes part of the community's heritage. And we know how attached you are to "heritage"...
We were already united, Bf... With goat-fucking!
Well... Bruce may be just a bit reticent, but he's very conservative...
Uhg. Meta. Meta is like trash. You just can't wait to get rid of it, especially when it is someone else's meta.
Well Bob, you got me on your article. So I will cover everything that needs to be covered.
So in closing, and I do mean closing, because I am closing down this article, I value Bob the member for his whit and mind. What I don't need it this kind of site wide drama. It's good for no one.. and I mean no one...not you, not me, and not the other members. You have had your day and now it's over. Welcome back and this article is officially closed.
Btw.. one last note: Thanks for the lovely depiction of me. It's charming.